linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <466DA660.4090102@cs.cmu.edu>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:45:36 -0400
From:	Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@...izon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for x86_64

Andi Kleen wrote:
> Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu> writes:
>> +#define EXPAND(i)						\
>> +	movl	OFFSET(i % 16)(DATA), TMP;			\
>> +	xorl	OFFSET((i + 2) % 16)(DATA), TMP;		\
> 
> Such overlapping memory accesses are somewhat dangerous as they tend
> to stall some CPUs.  Better probably to do a quad load and then extract.

OFFSET(i) is defined as 4*(i), so they don't actually overlap. 
(Arguably that macro should go away.)

> I haven't checked in detail if it's possible but it's suspicious you
> never use quad operations for anything. You keep at least half
> the CPU's bits idle all the time.

SHA-1 fundamentally wants to work with 32-bit quantities.  It might be 
possible to use quad operations for some things, with sufficient 
cleverness, but I doubt it'd be worth the effort.

> Gut feeling is that the unroll factor is far too large.
> Have you tried a smaller one? That would save icache
> which is very important in the kernel.

That seems to be the consensus.  I'll see if I can find some time to try 
linux@...izon.com's suggestion and report back.

I don't think, though, that cache footprint is the *only* thing that 
matters.  Leaving aside /dev/urandom, there are cases where throughput 
matters a lot.  This patch set came out of some work on a hashing block 
device driver in which SHA is, by far, the biggest CPU user.  One could 
imagine content-addressable filesystems, or even IPsec under the right 
workloads, being in a similar situation.

Would it be more palatable to roll the patch as an optimized CryptoAPI 
module rather than as a lib/sha1.c replacement?  That wouldn't help 
/dev/urandom, of course, but for other cases it would allow the user to 
ask for the optimized version if needed, and not pay the footprint costs 
otherwise.

--Benjamin Gilbert

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/